|
Post by Easy on Jul 23, 2017 16:30:05 GMT
Regarding tankers, I never use them ingame. I'm sure players wouldn't use drone or missile carriers if you could start the scenario with loose drones/missiles nicely undocked and ready to use.
But tankers, cargoships and other support vessels have that nice strategic way of reducing your operation ships' mass for better acceleration and fuel efficiency. But I'll let the bean counters and logistics officers do those calculations. Remember to use external tanks, because why armor fuel that you're going to burn off before the engagement anyways?
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jul 17, 2017 12:35:50 GMT
If you can choose preferred defense vectors you can concentrate armor, increase slope and minimize silhouette. I prefer a decent nose profile with the option to broadside with only one side. Why armor that underbelly if it is never exposed to enemy fire? Another question is if enemy fire scatters to near misses, do you want those off-target shots to scatter into another useful part of your spaceship?
Also if your combat ship lacks droptanks you are missing out, it is pretty much free delta v with zero drawbacks. For a thought experiment, build a ship that has zero internal fuel tanks.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 24, 2017 3:52:47 GMT
An escape shuttle attached to the main ship would make for a durable escape craft. I recommend having a high dV craft in your logistical support fleet for recovery of personnel and strategic equipment. A rescue craft that evades the actual combat doesn't need much armor. Possible synergy would be a final escape burn by the doomed craft or use of an escape rocket to put the entire craft or only crew to an intermediate point further from the enemy and closer to the rescue craft. If you can scuttle the craft and evacuate the crew before enemy exploitation,that's a good deal. Personally I recommend winning the battle.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 22, 2017 23:18:58 GMT
What matters most: size, mass, firepower, thrust, dV, or expense? The answer is victory. All other metrics are irrelevent compared to victory. I would shun the largest, smallest, fastest, slowest, cheapest, most expensive, and everything else in favor of a ship that wins, and so should you. The definition of the word 'victory' is pretty vague. A ship that win against every other capship might lose against mini missiles or drones. And yes, 'victory' depends on those factors. Lots of research and forethought to make a decision on what will be needed. In practice you're stuck with the equipment that acquisitions and planning decided several years ago. Don't get angry because they're trying to figure out what you'll need 5 years from now or more. Plus with space being big you've got months or years to get the ship to where you might need it, which is another bit of planning. That is unless you're confident enough to have a factory ship with necessary cargo supply to manufacture on demand and retrofit the combat ships you have nearby. Which implies that the manufacturing equipment is portable and effective enough to build the retrofit. I suspect even with advanced 3d printing and computer controlled manufacturing there will be specialty parts that cannot be built outside of a (not portable) specialized factory and logistics chain.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 19, 2017 17:55:46 GMT
Not securing cargo pallets to the deck's cargo attachment points? That's a paddling. Not completing the loadmaster's inspection on all cargo distribution and tiedowns? That's a paddling. That doesn't mean it won't happen, so it's better with them to the side with the engine just in case someone screwed up their mass-handling math. the cargo is not necessarily "on the floor". You might need to secure it differently. Especially if you had a tall but narrow cargo hold that was shaped like a grain silo. Plus this is space so you might have external cargo that is tied down with straps and cables and only has a thin micrometeriod covering at most. And all that has to result in an acceptable center of mass that our thrusters can gimbal or compensate for with an acceptable propellent inefficiency. -------------- Plus ships might have a "conning tower" sometimes an observation deck laterally offset from the hull has uses such as wide angle views (more than hemispherical), visual inspection of one half the hull, awareness during docking and the general ability to see both forwards and back from the same position. This says nothing of the tower's floor plan, nor am I justifying it on an amored combat ship, although you could still probably fit one at whatever mass penalty. It's not like the only job of every part of a warship is to accept enemy fire.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 19, 2017 17:44:15 GMT
Not securing cargo pallets to the deck's cargo attachment points? That's a paddling. Not completing the loadmaster's inspection on all cargo distribution and tiedowns? That's a paddling. Not verfying three dimensional mass distribution and derived rotational inertia is within operational limits? That's a paddling.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 19, 2017 17:31:25 GMT
I know, but sometimes the mycelium networks work. that is more of a super organism or networked ecosystem with interdependent cooperation. Perhaps in the same way a beehive, ant nest or human tribe might act in a biologically supported advanced behavior. A million acre wood networked for both nutrition and moisture by a single fungus organism is very real, but it isn't a planet.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 18, 2017 3:28:27 GMT
I am a big fan of 2001 style internal centrifuges. Relatively small, no visible rotation outside nor rotating seals. You don't have full earth gravity, but lunar gravity or less that keeps food and drinks in the right direction.
Gentle push with super low grav sleeping bunks nearest the hub. Gym and running track on the lowest level. Rotation could be stopped in emergencies or repair.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 13, 2017 4:04:26 GMT
Since 1.10, giant lasers are exceedingly fragile to counterlasers. A measly 10 W/m² intensity (available at 1 Mm with a small 100 kW UV laser) will instantly destroy a 10 m aperture superlaser. has this been determined to be a bug or feature in that redlined lasers don't have a spare 10W/m2 before melting?
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 11, 2017 23:50:19 GMT
Luna has the nice properties of a 3 day Hohmann transfer from earth and lunar regolith that has lots if water ice and all those other uses that dirt, sand and rock have.
It seems daft not to setup a test colony on a location that can receive help in 72 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 10, 2017 12:42:59 GMT
No way it isn't tsundere.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 8, 2017 16:18:54 GMT
Saying the Paris Accorda are not restrictive enough, while also saying that they're too restrictive, is unsurprising but disappointing. The Paris Accords - Doesn't fight Global Warming
- Promises to spend billions on programs that don't fight Global Warming
- Isn't even binding making the above two meaningless as you promise to follow bad ideas without even having to follow them
I will say no more, the Paris Accords are irredeemably flawed no matter who you are or what you believe.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 8, 2017 0:17:48 GMT
It's literally the least Trump could have done. Practically every other nation did it. And is it really necessary to point out that since the treaty is nonbinding, it literally cannot have a negative effect which couldn't be avoided by just ignoring it. It's like if everyone in the office signed a get-well soon card, but before it gets delivered, the new boss comes in and erases the old boss' name from it. It doesn't mean much in isolation, but everyone there is going to get the idea that the new boss is sending a cruel, short-sighted message. If the treaty is nonbinding why even have it? If it is only a get-well soon card, why spend 100 billion on something that doesn't even help the environment get well? If the treaty is nonbinding why does it matter if we are signed, unsigned or retract from it? And don't forget all the criticism the Paris agreement received because it was both nonbinding and ineffective. Would you wear a seatbelt that wasn't even secured to the car because it sends the right message?
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 7, 2017 13:34:10 GMT
Why defend a flawed treaty that doesn't accomplish any of its stated goals besides funneling money to organizations owned by well connected people?
If your car needs its gaskets replaced you don't pay to have your blinker fluid flushed.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Jun 7, 2017 13:28:30 GMT
Ships interiors have hallways or corridors. The drone can be blocking LOS to its wire while still advancing. well how did the drone get to the ship? also if my ship is a maze with very short LOS, then I can sneak behind the drones and slice the wires with no threat of contact, unless you leave mines, or have a metric excrementload of drones to leave one at every conner The logical response would to have more than one drone to explore several areas at once and attempt to secure cleared areas. Perhaps there are meat-drones following behind to secure and exploit the areas the boarding drone has already explored. The ship is lost, I don't know why you're being a hero just to temporarily disable one boarding drone. Plus how big could your crew quarters really be? Seems mass and volume inefficient to have a veritable maze, not to mention that it might be less than ergonomic for your crew under normal circumstances.
|
|